An Arborist Walks into a Bar

treeplanter said:
God had an infinite number of means by which to save and resurrect those babies
He consciously and purposefully chose drowning as the means
Click to expand...

Thanks, Captain Obvious.

treeplanter said:
By definition, the means that He chose was needless
Click to expand...

Then supply the definition. Then prove it was needless.

treeplanter said:
I CANNOT save and resurrect without drowning = NEEDED
I CAN save and resurrect without drowning, but choose to drown anyway = NEEDLESS
Click to expand...

Unless those drowned NEEDED it for a specific purpose.
 
treeplanter said:
And there it is...

Why carry on the charade of apologetics when you are convinced that, no matter what, He is always right?
Click to expand...

Amazing. You recognize the futility of arguing with those of us who know Him well enough to believe He is always right, but you've been doing it for years sand years and years for thousands upon thousands of posts. You even call it a charade, but you are the main participant.
 
stiggy wiggy said:
Amazing. You recognize the futility of arguing with those of us who know Him well enough to believe He is always right, but you've been doing it for years sand years and years for thousands upon thousands of posts. You even call it a charade, but you are the main participant.
Click to expand...
Futile?
Maybe

The charade, though, is yours - not mine

I deal in truth
You are inauthentic
 
treeplanter said:
You still don't get it, stiggy

Either God is able to transcend stiggy wiggy's perceived needs or He is not

You feel you needed every bit of harm you have endured throughout your life in order to have arrived at the place you are today
Fair enough

The question, though, is this:

Is God capable of having delivered you to this exact same place WITHOUT allowing and/or inflicting harm upon you in the process?

If He IS NOT capable of doing so then His actions are moral, but He is impotent as opposed to omnipotent

If He IS capable of doing so then He is omnipotent, but His actions are morally questionable given that He has consciously and purposefully chosen to inflict needless harm

Which is it?
You have yet to answer...
Click to expand...
Support your premise that it's morally questionable.
 
stiggy wiggy said:
So prove whatever you think was needless was needless.
Click to expand...
What are you not understanding???

If God had the option of other means {non-harmful means} by which to save and resurrect those babies then it was NEEDLESS to subject them to the harm of drowning!!!

This is not a difficult concept to grasp, stiggy!!!
 
treeplanter said:
My 'premise' is the exact same basic human standard of decency that each of us - yourself included - subscribes to:

It is immoral to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon others
Click to expand...
No I do not subscribe to that as an absolute.

Again, support the premise. Is it an appeal to popularity? Is that your support?
 
Simpletruther said:
No I do not subscribe to that as an absolute.

Again, support the premise. Is it an appeal to popularity? Is that your support?
Click to expand...
An appeal to popularity?
No

Rather, it is an appeal to the conscience that is written upon the heart of all men
{minus the true socio/psychopaths}

You know full well that I am right
You know full well that it is wrong/immoral to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon others

And if you want to prove me wrong then it is exceedingly simple to do so

All you have to do is state, here and now, that you, Simpletruther, do NOT believe it is wrong/immoral to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon others

Go ahead and do so, I'll wait here...
 
treeplanter said:
An appeal to popularity?
No

Rather, it is an appeal to the conscience that is written upon the heart of all men
{minus the true socio/psychopaths}

You know full well that I am right
You know full well that it is wrong/immoral to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon others
Click to expand...
For humans I would agree. Not for a perfect being that can make them glad they suffered.
treeplanter said:
And if you want to prove me wrong then it is exceedingly simple to do so

All you have to do is state, here and now, that you, Simpletruther, do NOT believe it is wrong/immoral to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon others

Go ahead and do so, I'll wait here...
Click to expand...
See above.
 
treeplanter said:
What are you not understanding???

If God had the option of other means {non-harmful means} by which to save and resurrect those babies then it was NEEDLESS to subject them to the harm of drowning!!!
Click to expand...

1. Prove they drowned,
2. After you fail at that, prove a greater need was not met by their drowning.

Don't even attempt 2 without 1 first. If you do, I will only repeat 1.
 
Simpletruther said:
I don't believe that though. Nor did my post imply it.
Click to expand...
Me:
You know full well that it is wrong/immoral to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon others

You:
For humans I would agree. Not for a perfect being that can make them glad they suffered.


If this doesn't mean that you believe God is always right, no matter what - then what does it mean?
 
treeplanter said:
Me:
You know full well that it is wrong/immoral to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon others

You:
For humans I would agree. Not for a perfect being that can make them glad they suffered.


If this doesn't mean that you believe God is always right, no matter what - then what does it mean?
Click to expand...
It means exactly what it says. And it certainly ly doesn't impmy God would be always right no matter what.

If God did something wrong it wouldnt be right......duh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top